From interviews held over the past several
weeks we might infer the following challenges to those who wish to bring
about solutions to major public policy problems: Assist, don't just
complain about, media coverage. Recognize that leaders might be hindered
by the structures within which they function. Consider the benefit of
setting up teams explicitly to propose major change. Look for system
change, rather than simply respond to symptoms. To ensure effective
change, see that change is owned at the operational level, not just the
policy level. Consider whether too many of us are more concerned about
"me" than about the "community." Engage in less protectionism and more
voluntary sharing of information. Consider whether recreating something
akin to a state planning agency would help. Emphasize that non-insider
organizations are very much needed for developing creative proposals.

I would disagree with business being classified as a "general purpose
organization." They make the financial donations, hire the lobbyists and
have the Chamber of Commerce running interference.

Media: Journalists far too often publish the information that the PR
Department provides without looking any deeper.

The Citizens League including a former Met. Council Director on their
team [working on] providing the legislature with another method of
selecting council members appears to be a poor decision, but may be fine
depending upon the role played.

As a leader of
an organization that is active at the State Legislature and wishing to
make legislative reforms I often see organizations that focus on only
what is good for them. I try to make a broader appeal on our issues and
utilize a Advocacy Plan that is in the best interests of all
Minnesotan's

Todd Otis

I thought your
"summary" session was exceptionally wise and put wonderfully succinctly.
Good job! Now we all have to go out and "just do it".

Tom Spitznagle

Please consider the
following observations along with all of the great points raised in your
email below:

One of the lessons I learned from my involvement in major systems
implementations at various Minnesota corporations was that the
participation of people all of the way down to the lowest levels was
critical to the success of any new system (I.e., a significant change in
how affected people work and live).

Simply getting together a group of management leaders to design and
implement change in the form of a new system that affects all employees
down the line can result in a failed implementation. I learned that
ignoring even the lowest level employee in such an endeavor can result
in that employee almost single-handedly obstructing the new system's
success.

Translating this into the public domain: today there seem to be an
ever-increasing number of top-down government laws, administrative
rules, executive orders, etc., that are causing considerable resistance
at the citizen level. Many of these top-down mandates affect citizen
rights and/or culture. If conflict and turmoil are the ultimate
objectives, then this is a good way to achieve it.

The polarized political environment is a significant factor. Government
does not seem to be working on our behalf. Instead, pushing a party's
particular ideology seems to be taking precedence. Polls support this
citizen concern about government's effectiveness. In this type of
environment, citizens would prefer that nothing get accomplished instead
of risking one-sided change.

So maybe a primary initiative for the Civic Caucus is to somehow work
with the state's political leadership to get them to realize that their
behavior is holding back progress on many important issues—sort of like
a mediator might do.

Party leaders and bureaucrats can't just wait until they have the
political power to ram their preferred ideological programs down onto
citizens. This just does not work and is very destructive, pitting
citizens against citizens in a win/lose environment.

Until the top-down, ideological political environment changes, it will
be much more difficult for outside civic groups to make a positive
impact with ideas for improvement.

I suspect that this destructive political environment is also
discouraging many citizens from becoming involved. Most well intentioned
folks just don't need the grief associated with trying to promote
positive change in a dysfunctional environment.

Dennis Carlson

Clarification of
definitions is needed. Definitely, a good idea. I would suggest
narrowing your focus too. I think you would have a greater impact.

Assist, don't just complain about, media coverage. I have real
mixed feelings on this one. As a superintendent I received regular
pressure to respond to all media requests by our Communication
Department and regular pressure from our legal counsel to talk to no
one. Your job as superintendent is to navigate those waters and choose
when and who you talk to. I would be very careful to seek references,
analyze previous articles, and do some real research on media types
before I would offer any of them assistance. I would be much more
supportive of working with local community media. Too many times I have
found the media to be acting in their own self-interest rather than
trying to serve the best interests of the community.

Look at helping leaders bring about system change. It would be
interesting to offer help with existing leadership and see how they
respond. When we were going through such tough times in 2010, I welcomed
help from the Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights, to come and
offer their community mediation services in the area of LGBT rights and
their safety in a large school system. Once the legal side of DOJ/OCR
got involved they took over and dropped the supportive mediation offer.
I have always felt that we could have used outside legal support and
mediation strategies to help us during that very controversial and
polarized time.

I would also add that the two federal judges we worked with were
terrific. They looked at the whole situation, considered the legal
implications and the community impact, and strategized with several
parties to build a consensus and agreement. Offering your services to
mediators, judges, legal representatives, or others, may be worth
considering.

Consider how much change is occurring. Is our current
organizational framework not conducive to producing good leadership?
Alignment in large institutions and in society in general is a huge
issue. In the field of education I fear we are often working at
cross-purposes within local, state, and federal government. Within our
state, and locally, we do not often agree between administrative
leadership and union groups. The extremes that each side
takes—administrative position: teacher tenure must be eliminated,
teacher union position: you are out to destroy the union—make it
impossible to make the needed change that would lead to actual education
reform. If those two entities could come to a consensus that would
actually improve student learning, progress could be made.

Consider setting up different teams explicitly assigned to bring
about change. An idea worth pursuing.

Efforts are hindered by failure to recognize business contribution
and to throw off an attachment to the past. Identifying businesses
that have a strong interest in improving community systems and
structures I think could be useful. Those business leaders could be
represented on the "teams" you suggest creating. I would encourage you
to bring that idea up when you meet with Charlie Weaver.

Don't forget need for restructuring, not just attacking symptoms of
problem. Unless there is some driving force—lack of funds, complete
institutional collapse, public outrage, or a no confidence vote—I don't
see this happening. Without some driving force why would anyone take
this on?

Too much ill intent is presumed. I think the barriers to overcome
system change are huge and strongly embedded in current leadership. As
an example, look at our political parties and the positions that are
taken in any controversial area. Compromise and consensus are never the
goal. Staying true to your political base (essential to win the next
election) seems to be the only priority.

It is difficult to ensure that change is implemented at the
operational level. This is where alignment, leadership, and
communication (at all levels of the organization) all play such a
critical part. Unless organizational change is understood at the
operational level, effectively implemented (along with professional
development and training), and rooted in institutional policy, the
change will last only as long as current leadership lasts.

Should we narrow the focus? Yes, I thought this was very wisely
stated. "What we are really trying to talk about is effective
involvement of citizens, working together, seeking agreement...civic
groups might spend too much time trying to restructure grand systems,
when they might be more productive looking at narrower, specific
questions that the community is trying to answer."

Build a specific recommendation on public policy information.
Identifying and focusing on a specific community problem is the first
order of business. What the community can do to narrow the education
achievement gap would be my choice. Schools cannot do it alone in
isolation.

Specific, creative recommendations can insulate themselves from undue
attack. Verbal attacks are a given in the current environment.
However, as retirees and wise people (without an axe to grind), you may
have a real opportunity to say what needs to be said and to be honest
and direct in identifying barriers and solutions.

Is there too much concern for "me" as opposed to concern for the
"community"? Yes, that is the current environment as I see it.

Less selfish protectionism and more voluntary sharing of information
would help. I think this happens regularly in education professional
organization silos but seldom at the institutional level. Silo thinking
and examples exist at every level - bargaining groups, administration,
school board (elected officials), state legislature, congress, president
and cabinet.

Does Minnesota need something like a state planning agency? Yes,
but if it is rooted in a political party (Governor appointed) it will be
opposed by the other party at every turn.

Narrow the focus to "non-insider" organizations in public policy.
Still seems too broad to be effective.

Acknowledge the influence of paid lobbyists. True, but very
difficult to challenge. I believe they need to be at the
problem/solution table too.

If a problem doesn't get solved, don't just blame the "insiders"; the
do-gooders are also to blame. This example might support your point.
There has been a fight for the last several years within early
education. The fight is this: one special interest group only supports
additional funding that goes to support quality child care, the other
special interest group only supports school readiness (for 3 and 4 year
old children) with licensed teachers. The truth is, both are needed, but
the continued battle between Art Rolnick and Community Education for
funding hurts both groups.

There are serious problems with "omnibus" bills. This is an age
old problem of late-night, last-minute, all-encompassing, political
agreements made with leadership. Actual alignment only seems to be
important in partisan campaigning, not in the passage of laws that
positively affect communities and their institutions. That is what
non-funding sessions are all about—to fix all the mistakes that were
made in the last funding session where elected officials voted on bills
they hadn't read and didn't understand. Please pardon my cynicism; it
is, however, based on my experience.

The Metropolitan Council is an issue raiser and solution proposer.
In suburbia, the Met Council is suspect and seen as overreaching without
local community buy in. The Met Council is seen in Anoka County as part
of the problem, not the solution.

Impact of technology. I see it as both: it can bring about
positive change (better communication among diverse people) and yet can
be a huge potential risk (bullying, verbal and sexual abuse, and
contributing to suicides). What social media leaders have done with our
youth is deplorable, while most youth would say it has been great.
Social media has created a "Lord of the Flies" environment with no
adults in charge.

Impact of demographic diversity. A critical issue in many, many
areas and ripe for potential solutions in the economy, job and skill
shortages, improving education and the achievement gap, and cultural
understanding in a global society.

Impact of new media. True, but finding the credible ones I find
difficult. If you could identify which are worthwhile it could be very
helpful. I would propose that Civic Caucus form a working alliance with
MinnPost so that both could reach wider audiences. You two could the
start of a media "team."

Processes evolving. I think new processes are in order to work in
an ever-changing environment. Our tried and true old processes aren't
working. The earlier example of end of legislative session mistakes and
missteps is a perfect example.

Lyall Schwarzkopf

This was a good review
of what the Civic Caucus has heard and summarized from recent meetings.
Its now important to put the new ideas to work. Yes, it is hard to
propose new or different ideas because of the push-back from insiders,
but it needs to happen. New ideas need to be vetted and ready to work if
implemented. That is important.

The Civic Caucusis a non-partisan,
tax-exempt educational organization. The Interview Group
includes persons of varying political persuasions,
reflecting years of leadership in politics and
business. Click here to see a short personal background of each.